[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [discuss] Individual representation
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
> Sent: Sunday, June 27, 1999 7:17 AM
> To: Joop Teernstra
> > I must take issue with this view. Nobody should be called loud, just
> > because an opposing argument is advanced.
> while literally true, unfortunately there is a serious problem hidden
The argument that you forward here is one that's been floated before and
(IMHO) is one of the chief failings of the consensus model and the main
reason polling-based process work better in a larger audience. It
eliminates that part of the equation. In a large group, anyone can claim
consensus for their view and no one could dispute them. After all, where
are the poll results to prove them wrong, a lack of a loud hummmm?
There has been recent argument about the size of the participants herein
(these debates). But, I put the question to you; does any IETF WG
achieve the size and number of conflicting views that we have on these
issues before us? I would wager not. Consensus approaches do not scale
up easily and require supporting structures (polls, votes, and the
In the past week I have seen a lot of unsupportable claims made.
Actually, I have been seeing them for the past six months. Part of our
out-reach should be to set up opinion/consensus gathering mechnisms, if
not for access by the general public then for ourselves. At the least,
we need semi-formal infrastructure for these things. We can no longer
work by screaming at each other. The past two years have proven the
inefficacy of that approach.